Talk:Jews

To discuss the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Template talk:Infobox Jews.

This cannot be true

Quote:

" study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora"

The bold in part cannot be true. The "original" Israelites looked middle eastern, why are european jews white, and ethopian jews black and so on?

There must have been a lot of intermarriage, otherwise this is just not possible.

If jewish communities were so isolated, how do you explain the looks of people like, say, James Caan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Portman, William Shatner, Debra Messing, David Beckham etc. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.6.209 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 August 2009

The key word in that quote is "relative". that can mean anything from quite isolated to merely isolated enough for a difference to be detected. The evidence in the study is more consistent with the latter. Furthermore, it is not at all clear what the "common Middle Eastern ancestral pool" actually was - there is plenty of evidence of conversion even as early as Hellenistic times, and at that point the converts would also have been Middle Eastern or Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not setting out to defend the source that you've quoted, but the way someone looks is not a perfect reflection of their genetic makeup. Additionally, the source describes a statistical study and statistical significance. A certain percentage of people will not have the same ancestry as the rest, and that does not invalidate the statement, it just reflects normal variation. Also note that the quote says "most Jewish communities", it does not say all. In fact the source material states there are exceptions. Also, please sign your posts (which can be done by typing 4 tildas (~) in a row. Lamber111 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me to wonder what "Jewish communities" means in the original statement. If we mean relatively orthodox groupings then it's pretty plausible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that Middle Eastern Jews like the Israelites didn't look like modern Arabs of the region, much like Ancient Egyptians being racially quite different to modern Egyptians, and modern Britons being very different to the Celts, Anglo-saxons, Normans, Vikings etc. that variously inhabited what is now the UK. If you go to a place like Israel, you'll see that the Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews aren't racially that different, and what differences there are probably came from isolated rapes and intermarriages, rather than long periods of co-habitation (though that did occur in some places, such as medieval Spain). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks aren't actually indicative of ancestry. Also there are no pictures of Ancient Jews to compare to. Differences in appearance come from various forces. One being that over time populations will shift in appearance even if they have the same founding population. Second rape, converts, intermarriage (Although rare) has an effect as well. Each communities of Jews is largely closely related but each one I believe shows some signs of gaining host converts or somehow gaining host DNA. "White" and "Brown" are irrelevant. (72.4.182.241 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

• Looks are always indicative of ancestry, it's just that we don't always know the exact details of that ancestry. I don't know how YeshuaDavid can claim that modern Britons are different from their ancestors. We do have reconstructive techniques that show that, by and large, ethnic features are very long-lived. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Features might be. But the persons primary contention was over skin tone. Which isn't even uniform in the current middle east. Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples. But besides the point the original founding population could appear in any way. If we go by the bible then didn't King David have Red hair? I mean the appearance of an ancient Jew I don't think is entirely relevant. The genetic studies seem conclusive along with anthropology and other such cultural histories. (Nazrael (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Modern Britons are different to the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain. Different waves of immigration of introduced different peoples to the UK, that have integrated at various times with the existing populations. I live in London, and literally everyone I know is not of pure English ancestry, but we're all English nevertheless. If you want a good example with the Egyprians, see Ancient Egyptian race controversy. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture a child born in London in 1961 (to native parents). Each generation of this child's ancestors doubles in size, and assuming 25 year generation times, in the year 1086, 34,359,738,368 of that child's ancestors should be alive. Given that the population of the Isles was a few million at the time, it means what? It means that there has been massive inbreeding. Everybody in Britain is highly related to everybody else. One can see this formation of ethnic groups operating in Brazil and Puerto Rico right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It means, at the very least, that there is some kind of erroneous assumption or logical paradox involved in this reasoning process, since there weren't 34 trillion alive back then. Very shaky grounds for proving anything. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How many great-grandparents do you have? The answer is always 8. You can extrapolate this back with no loss of generality. The only way to resolve this "paradox" is if some of the entries in the child's family tree are the same person; that is what we call inbreeding. So in fact this is mathematically extremely solid ground for proving that there is inbreeding. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a easy question. The jewish male has been quite genetic isolated. There has been few European male converted to Judaism. But on the female side i'll quote the article: "The authors showed Ashkenazi Jewish communities (mtDNA female, my comment) belong to the same haplogroups as their host (non-Jewish) European communities, with only small deviations in frequency. "
You see the jewish male have married European women. And this is why you've got blond jews!

I've read all the DNA discussions in the Archives and I must say that in every discussion about DNA the "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities" always consider the DNA debate from the Y-dna (male) point of view. Everyone is made up of 50% father and 50% mother. = Blond?!

I'll Quote this from the archives: "The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%) Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the Alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in Germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K. 60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in Europe. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html"
Jewish Male and European woman, a success story perhaps!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The paper from J Feder et al. does not say that. She says "These findings, taken together with HVR1 sequences for some of the haplogroups, such as N1b, that contain motifs restricted and common to all Ashkenazi Jewish populations, may further support the interpretation of little or no gene flow of the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries."However, I she does not say where does the founder come from.--Boutboul (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

but you can't take a haplogroup that represents 10% of A-Jews and then conclude that there is no gene flow from the hosting populations. Further more they dissect the Hgs K to subtypes and of course you will find differences. One girl is Jewish but her sister is of Non Jewish European origin. And by that conclude there are differences, hmm ok. I would say it´s racist!!

You've got a lot of data that you do not tell in the article, for instance: "We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium." So why does they not dissect the H haplogroup wich is present in 21% of the A-Jews? Beause it´s a major Hgs in European Non jews! Perhaps over 40%!

Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews. Biblically speaking King David allegedly was a red head along with Essu. Also MtDNA tests I had read did show significant mixes, while many Ashkenazim Jews had female ancestors from the Levant some also had some locals. If biblical accounts are to be looked into with any validity then one can safely say red headedness and possibly blond hair is not unheard of. Communities like the Ashkenazim have absorbed several groups such as remaining Khazar and Kimchacks (SP?) converts. All of which has little baring on being a Jew or not. (Nazrael (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)).

"Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews"

"Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples"

Yes, but if some one looks like Helen Hunt or Michael Douglas for example (who have "facial features" not unlike other white people by the way).. now way that there was no intermixing in those cases. Are you really saying that in ancient Israel tons of people moved around who looked like Michael Douglas, Cindy Margolis or David Duchovny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.54 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2009

"If jewish communities were so isolated, how do you explain the looks of people like, say, James Caan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Portman, William Shatner, Debra Messing, David Beckham etc. ?"

Peroxide. Most Jews have dark features. It's a fact. Jim Steele (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have talked with expert geneticists and they say there is no real evidence that present day Jews are descendants of biblical Jews. How come this entry seems so assertive of the opposite notion? Reallyskeptic (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article cites the work of actual expert geneticists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

Are there any sources to back up the statement that Judaism encompasses "the Jewish way of life" to this degree? The article Judaism itself has a hatnote saying "This article is about the Jewish religion", and I feel that assertion is more accurate than what we have here. All religions encompass to some degree "law, culture, and philosophy": see the articles Islamic culture, Sharia, Islamic philosophy, Biblical law in Christianity, Christian values, Christian philosophy and much more. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Census

When dealing with census, stats, polls, and the like, are Jews classified as White people? I was wondering because I do not know what ethnic group they tend to identify as. 75.4.247.171 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we mean U.S. (and sticking for the moment to the census), each person self-identifies. There are some Jews who are clearly not white (e.g. Ethiopian Jews), but I think most of us end up checking that particular box based on phenotype. I personally check it reluctantly. I don't particularly identify as a "white person", but it is more accurate than any other ethnic/racial identity they offer me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this: "Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite the POV lie that some folks push that Jews are an ethnic group, there are literally 100s of ethnic groups that Jews may belong to. Personally, I am of mixed European ancestry. My religion is Jewish. My ethnic group is Brooklyn. :-) Sposer (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Jmabel notes that there is little consistency among page titles of ethnicity articles. Thus, the argument of this requested move boils down to whether the plural or singular is preferable in this particular case. The consensus here seems to be that that is the plural: to match the article's lead sentence (Prezbo), for consistency with other articles (Yoninah; 84...), or as a matter of preference (Nick Graves). Bus stop and Debresser have the most substantive arguments against, but they are not significantly more persuasive or policy-based than those on the opposing side. The consensus appears to be in favor of the move. Ucucha 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And you quickly closed discussion in such a slipshod manner? You allowed for exactly what - six days for discussion? This is utterly ridiculous and I hope your changes are rolled back and that the usual editors of this page step up. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Jew → Jews — On the basis that Jews are not merely adherents of a religion, but make up an ethnoreligious group. For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu), while for national groups the plural seems to be used (e.g. Germans, Russians, Celts). While obviously the Jewish people transcend to some extent this division, I feel as a national group the latter is more appropriate. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems very odd and inappropriate that such a serious move to upturn a fairly big apple cart (this article has not changed since its inception more than SEVEN years ago with multipl editors never objecting) can be initiated by an anonymous user who refuses to do the basic thing of getting an identifiable User ID. This is not right. IZAK (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Please review the archives. This issue has been discussed many times before. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I realise that, but I thought it was time for a fresh evaluation. Though it's been discussed since, the last actual request I can find was back in June 2007, when the nominator was suggesting that "Jew" was offensive. I don't think there is anything wrong with "Jew" as a term, I don't find it derogative, but I do think it isn't the right title for this article. This article isn't (mainly) about who is a Jew, Jewish identity, and what being a Jew entails; its about the Jews as a people, and their collective history, culture, society and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • With respect to the move request, I don't have a preference one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I find it completely irrelevant whether this article is named "Jew" or "Jews." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know it doesn't make a massive difference either way, but I do think there is a strong case for moving. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

84.92.117.93 — Can you refer me to a good quality, online source, that supports your assertion that Jews are an ethnoreligious group? I would be interested to see how closely your assertion would adhere to your source. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This study, The Transformation of Community Integration among American Jewry: Religion or Ethnoreligion? A National Replication, by J. Alan Winter (1992) talks about American Jews as forming an ethnic rather than religous community. "The study supports Winter's (1991) contention that the basis of community integration among Jews in the United States is "ethnoreligious" rather than Levine's (1986:329) earlier suggestion that "Judaism as a religion is... separate from Jewish ethnic communities." 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the above, rather than discussing whether or not there is a Jewish ethnicity (to be honest, I'm not sure about the science of that), my point is that the Jews are a people in the way many many other religous adherants are not, due to socio-historical events. The whole race thing is a bit controversial, and I don't particuarly want to discuss that here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I had not before noticed the (de facto?) standard of entitling articles about members of a religious group in the singular, and articles about members of an ethnic/national group in the plural. As this article is about an ethnoreligious group, it is not clear which form "should" be used for the title according to the standard anon identifies above. I'd lean in favor of the title "Jews," just as a personal preference, but I am unable to articulate exactly why this sounds better to me, nor justify it as any more encyclopedic than the alternative. Whatever advantage there might be to the title in plural form is marginal at best, and certainly not worth the long debate that must surely precede such a move, nor the potential further debate and edit warring that would likely follow such a move. I therefore oppose this proposal, and respectfully suggest its retraction. Nick Graves (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed it was some kind of policy, but maybe its just emerged naturally. All of the articles about particular nationalities I can find either have "people" attached (British people, French people, Dungan people) or have a normal plural (Kazakhs, Danes, Croats), this article is the only one to use the singular. Obviously, I agree with you that it doesn't make a huge difference either way, but it does seem more consistant.

As for why the plural is more enyclopedic, I would suggest that the title I'm proposing better fits the subject material of this article, as the subject is the people, not what it is to be Jewish. "Jews" is also what is currently used in the lead section. I don't think the proposed title would lead to any edit warring or conflict. I think the fact that this move has been suggested multiple times before is suggestive that the current title is not the best one for this article, something which is better to fix now and resolve permenantly. Like you, I don't want to engage in long disputes over this page move, and would prefer the discussions to remain civil. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. As I stated before, I personally prefer the plural form of the title. I opposed the request only insofar as I thought the process of debating the move might become a big ordeal, and that the move might be a prelude to a reversion back to this namespace, edit warring, etc. I don't think anyone's expressed strong opposition to the move, and am convinced by another contributor that, if this article were moved, it would probably stay put. If someone wants to move this page, I have no objection. Nick Graves (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose how about a name without needing to mess with plural/singular? say Jewry 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Jewry" isn't a very commonly used word for the Jewish people, it sounds a bit archaic. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It is more religious than ethno. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If not ethinicity, (and I think I get myself in a bit of a tangle with that), then please accept that the Jews at least form a people and for that reason should be moved. Much like Americans, Jews today are ethinically diverse, even if they share a common origin, but have a shared national identity that exceeds mere relgous belief. See the article Secular Jewish culture. There isn't an Islamic or Christian people in the same way that transcends national boundaries. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is interesting. I'm essentially in the same place as Nick Graves on this subject, in that I've never before consciously noticed the distinction between religious and ethnic names in English before. At the very least I'm happy to have seen this due to that singular point. On the other hand, I don't really support his conclusion. I'm generally a non-confrontational person myself, largely because confrontations cause me real discomfort, but I've become convinced over time that ignoring these issues only makes things worse for all of us over time. The fact that someone has utilized process to begin a discussion about the issue almost automatically merits attention from me any more, when I can afford to spend the time in giving it. As for this specific proposal, I'm leaning towards Support, but am somewhat awaiting a good reason to oppose.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the history of this article, there have been quite a few requests and discussions about whether this article should be moved away from the current title. I'm fairly sure that if this article were moved, nobody would suggest that it be moved back. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the contoversy suggests that there is more to the issue than a simple singular/plural debate on wiki style. The burden of proof is on the one who suggests the change. Mere passage of time is not reason enough to consider making a change. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mere passage of time" is not the rationale I am suggesting for making the move. And I don't think there's any "contoversy", it's just that a lot of people, over time, have probably felt the article should be moved for the reasons I've laid out above. What "burden of proof" do you require from me? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What "burden of proof"? An editor recommended a move and has laid out the reasons why. Since consensus can change, it's not inappropriate to ask us to reconsider the title. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, when it comes to American groups, the terms are usually not pluralized: African American, Arab American, Armenian American, Austrian American, Chinese American etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but considering that is a recent convention (within the last 20 years or so), I'd think that would be more of an anachronism then something decisive. But, like I said above, I'm hardly an expert on the subject of religious/ethnic name etymologies. It's a somewhat fascinating topic though!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think with the hyphenated Americans (and similar groups, i.e. Polish British, Afro-Brazilian) the thinking behind that is that they are subsets of the main American (or British or Brazilian) population, a people within a people if you like. These articles are a bit inconsistant though, see for example Jewish related articles like British Jews, German Jews, American Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As I read through this thread, I was shaking my head in disagreement over the ethnicity/religiosity argument. Ethnically, Jews could not be more different, from the Sephardi Iranian to the Ashkenazi German to the Reform American to the Chinese convert. The only thing that ties them together is the Torah, meaning religion. However, this last comment by 84.92.117.93 convinced me on the basis of policy alone. If we have British Jews, German Jews, and American Jews—and we also have Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews—then we might as well have Jews. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • How about secular Jews; are they "tied together with the Torah" too? Also, is a Jew who converts to another religion still a Jew? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that particularly important somehow? I'm not really disparaging that mention at all, but it seems obvious to me that we're not going to see total consistency in something like this. I'd also note that you (subconsciously?) used the plural form yourself, there. All I'm saying is that it may be best to keep the request within the confines of the reasoning given here, since in a subject area like this we could muddy the waters by widening the scope of the discussion based on a change in either direction. We should probably stick close to things which directly help in resolving the question.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, did I open up a can of worms? To answer Jayjg: Secular Jews are Jews, they just don't follow the religion that they identify with. I agree with V = I * R that we should limit this to policy, and the distinction between Jew and Jews is pretty dak (fine), if you ask me. Yoninah (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't follow the religion they "identify" with? They don't "identify" with any religion, including Judaism! If a Jew converts to Hinduism (as many have), is he still a Jew? Please answer that question, and if the answer is "yes", then please explain how the Torah that he doesn't believe in or follow "ties him" to other Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg — the Torah does not posit that a Jew "believe in" anything. Judaism can be thought of as recommending belief in a variety of things, but Judaism does not require that anyone "believe in" anything. This is distinct from Christianity, for instance, which assumes "belief" to be a sort of prerequisite to membership. Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While I find this discussion interesting, can we please limit this discussion to the actual move request. I'm happy to accept that there are varying definitions out there about who is a Jew, and how important belief in the Torah and Judaism is to Jewish identity. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there wasn't any discussion concerning "who is a Jew." Nor did anybody attribute importance in "belief in the Torah." Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, discussing Judaism itself then. In any case, its not related to this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But nothing thus far presented has anything to do with whether this article should be titled in the singular or the plural. I don't think the precedence of other articles or naming conventions concerning other articles presents compelling reason to name this article one way or the other. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. My request isn't based on the precedence of other articles or naming conventions, although these should be taken into account. My main rationale is that because this article is about a people (as opposed to the individual), the plural is much more appropriate. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a people and an individual other than number? Obviously there is more than one Jew in the world. Is your reasoning that the article title should shed light on the fact that there is more than one Jewish person in the world? Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're misreading what I'm saying. My argument is that this article isn't about one Jew or many Jews; it's about one people, the Jewish people. Having this article at "Jew" is like having the article about English people at "English person". A nation as a concept is more than just the sum of the people within it. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I just skimmed this discussion so ignore this comment if you want, but personally I always thought the singular title looked weird. It seems like the title should match the first sentence, which introduces the article subject. If the first sentence talks about "Jews" rather than saying "A Jew is...," then that implies that the plural is the most natural way to introduce the topic, and the title should reflect that.Prezbo (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Article naming. There is simply no consistency on this at all. Whatever we do, moving any one article won't create consistency. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The project appears to be quite vague on this, and doesn't really explain on what grounds the divisions are being made. To quote: "there is no strong consensus on naming of articles about ethnic groups". In the absence of any strong policy or consistancy in this matter, it seems logical to apply an article-by-article approach and see if any consensus emerges. In this case, I feel there is a strong incentive to move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I oppose the proposed move. What source asserts that the other named religious groups DO NOT contain ethnic elements? It seems unlikely to me that "ethnicity" would apply to Jews but not to members of other religious groups.

84.92.117.93 asserts here that "For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu)…" How does 84.92.117.93 reach the conclusion that these other religious groups — in distinction from Jews — do not contain an "ethnic" element?

How do we know that Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, do not contain an "ethnic element?" No source is provided for that assertion. I think a source is needed to make the distinction that 84.92.117.93 is trying to make between Jews and other religious groups. The assertion seems unlikely and it is completely lacking a source.

I think Wikipedia policy would call for the assertion in a reliable source that Jews contain ethnic elements and the members of other religions such as Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, DO NOT contain such ethnic elements. Wikipedia policy of the most basic and fundamental nature should be brought to bear in guiding this decision-making process. That in a nutshell means that sources should be provided for the sometimes unlikely assertions upon which the proposed move is based.

Wiki policy especially WP:RS and WP:VER should be brought to bear in guiding this process before people begin reaching the conclusion that Judaism is a religion that needs to be distinguished from other religions in the way that the reasons given for this proposed move seem to suggest. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the above, you would see I already made perfectly clear that ethnicity (which is contentious, even among academics and scholars) forms only part of my point. If the Jews are not an ethnoreligious group (and the lead of this article still says they are), then they are still a people or national group in a way other religous communities are not. Whereas the Jews trace their common origin from the Israelites, a people who occupied the land of Israel, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism have well documented histories of expansion through the conversion of numerous peoples. There is no Jewish equivalent.

If you want sources to prove that there is no Christian people, no Muslim people, and no Hindu people with desires for self-determination please read History of Christianity, History of Islam and History of Hinduism, as well as the articles on Christendom and the Muslim world. You will hopefully find there are Christians that are European, African and East Asian; Muslims that are Arab, Malay and Punjabi; Hindus that are Bengali, Telegu and Sinhalese. Of course, there are Jewish ethnic divisions, and certain numbers of converts to Judaism - but they are all accepted into the Jewish people as equals. If you want me to prove there is a Jewish people and Jewish national identity, please see Homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism and Jewish identity. You will find many referenced reliable sources that support what I am saying. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'Keep because this has not been a problem from the time of the creation of this article. Nothing will be gained. It will make matters worse. How many types of "Jews" are there? It will confuse the Who is a Jew? question. Will that also then be changed to Who are Jews??? Jew is an accepted root word for Jewish and Jewish People. This is a futile and pointless discussion that can only result in more problems. IZAK (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only suggesting this article be moved. This move will not affect Who is a Jew? and other articles where the singular "Jew" is used. The move will not, as you suggest, "make matters worse" or "result in more problems" – I fail to see how moving this article will have any adverse consequence on any other article on Wikipedia. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support this move. It's been suggested before, but change happens only when the fantatics seems to take a wikibreak around these parts. Moreover, can we agree most Jews don't think saying "there's a Jew over there, and another Jew over there too" is acceptable over "There's are Jews living there?" Then why should "Jew" be O.K.? Hopefully this move will initiate some change over at Who is a Jew?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsteele9999 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Change. This user =appears to have unilaterally made the change regardless. From the 18th of this month to today all of this happened? And many usual editors made no comment...I find it so hard to swallow. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Population

I suggest that we use a range for the the Jewish population. Right now we have population ranges for the US and Israel. We should do this for many other nations on this list which have various different population numbers from different credible sources. The total population of Jews worldwide by some is estimated to be as high as 14-15 Million. Not all are religious many just ethnically jewish. Also Israels Central Bureau of Statistics puts Israels Jewish population as of the 2009 census at 5.6 Million. Which can be as High as 5.9 if counting many Russian Jews not recognized as jews by the Rabbinate. Other examples include the Jewish population of France which ranges from 490,000 - 600,000. Italy, 28,000 - 45,000. The number of jews in the United States can be anywhere from 4 Million to 7.4 Million. In any case since we already have ranges for Israel and The United states we should put a range for the total including the larger figures. --Gwax23 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Do you have any suggestions concerning reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have sources to contribute, I agree with the general notion of using ranged figures rather than single values. Population numbers are always imprecise, and with something as debatable as defining who is a Jew, there are obviously going to be widely contrasting available statistics. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I will get the sources posted here soon as I can. In the mean time while we have already 2 ranged figures we should post a range for the total just makes sense and is more consistent. I'm aware that the main sources of discrepancies in the numbers is due to defining who is a Jew and thats why I support using different sources which use different definitions of who can be considered jewish not strictly the Halakha definition (Only jewish if mother is jewish). Also according the jewish virtual library which got its numbers from the American Jewish Year book and the Jewish Agency the Jewish Population is 13,296,100 not the 13,155,000 we are using. Thats just a side note.--Gwax23 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)